will (free, broken, operational)
Sandra Dodd
Yikes. Two things in the same half hour.
I know we've talked about the horrid idea of "breaking a child's will" in this forum, but today there are two touches of "will."
One is a question I was asked in an interview that's just been published on the mothering blog of Rashmie Jaaju. Her question and part of my answer:
––––––––––––––––––––
In your question you said: ”The parents think they are actually being kind and forming the child’s character and will.”
Parents never, ever form a child’s will. They can attempt to break it, but they can no more create a will than they can make a tree grow in any other way than planting the seed and nurturing the sprout. One’s will is inherent. You can’t plant an oak and grow an apple tree.
––––––––––––––––––––
http://www.mommy-labs.com/holistic_living/sandra-dodd-interview-how-do-unschoolers-cope-with-college-questions-on-learning-without-school-living-joyfully/
The other thing was on facebook, an image from a Waldorf school anti-TV demonstration. http://sandradodd.com/t/steinerScreen.jpg
One of the effects listed there is "switched off will."
I don't think one's will "switches off."
Sandra
I know we've talked about the horrid idea of "breaking a child's will" in this forum, but today there are two touches of "will."
One is a question I was asked in an interview that's just been published on the mothering blog of Rashmie Jaaju. Her question and part of my answer:
––––––––––––––––––––
In your question you said: ”The parents think they are actually being kind and forming the child’s character and will.”
Parents never, ever form a child’s will. They can attempt to break it, but they can no more create a will than they can make a tree grow in any other way than planting the seed and nurturing the sprout. One’s will is inherent. You can’t plant an oak and grow an apple tree.
––––––––––––––––––––
http://www.mommy-labs.com/holistic_living/sandra-dodd-interview-how-do-unschoolers-cope-with-college-questions-on-learning-without-school-living-joyfully/
The other thing was on facebook, an image from a Waldorf school anti-TV demonstration. http://sandradodd.com/t/steinerScreen.jpg
One of the effects listed there is "switched off will."
I don't think one's will "switches off."
Sandra
Sandra Dodd
Here's what I had responded to the image from the waldorf school:
For unschoolers, learning shouldn't be limited that way. And it's supremely hypocritical to post this on facebook, on "a screen." To call all of movies, television, computers and games "screens" is lazy and wrong. Do you limit "paper time" (lumping magazines and books with toilet paper and printed photographs)? Do you limit "cloth time" (towels, sheets, clothing, upholstery, flags, tents and handkerchiefs all together and measured and counted and timed)?"
__________
I first used that "paper time / cloth time" example at Brie Jontry's house a year and a half ago, because people were coming over who were believers in some local guy's anti-TV writings.
I've since thought "skin time," or "human time" (people do use "face time" sometimes), and whether other such things should be limited. Water time? If someone's already played in the water, or irrigated the orchard, should they then not take a shower or bath because they've had enough water time?
Sandra
For unschoolers, learning shouldn't be limited that way. And it's supremely hypocritical to post this on facebook, on "a screen." To call all of movies, television, computers and games "screens" is lazy and wrong. Do you limit "paper time" (lumping magazines and books with toilet paper and printed photographs)? Do you limit "cloth time" (towels, sheets, clothing, upholstery, flags, tents and handkerchiefs all together and measured and counted and timed)?"
__________
I first used that "paper time / cloth time" example at Brie Jontry's house a year and a half ago, because people were coming over who were believers in some local guy's anti-TV writings.
I've since thought "skin time," or "human time" (people do use "face time" sometimes), and whether other such things should be limited. Water time? If someone's already played in the water, or irrigated the orchard, should they then not take a shower or bath because they've had enough water time?
Sandra
BRIAN POLIKOWSKY
UGh ! Just saw the image being shared~!
I have a local friend that homeschools that says that reading in a kindle is screen time and not the same as reading the same book in paper. I am talking about just a reading kindle, the one that feels like reading in paper and it has no back lights , but even if!
It is all about fear, they read this kind of stuff and it seems that the fears it creates stops them from thinking. Really thinking clearly.
And people like that are using the computer, have ipads and smart phones but they think their kids brains will be stunted if they use the electronics!
This is the year 2012~! Why are people thinking they need to prepare their kids to live in the early 1900s or even earlier?
Not saying we need to prepare kids for their future life. We just live life now , in the present!
Alex Polikowsky
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I have a local friend that homeschools that says that reading in a kindle is screen time and not the same as reading the same book in paper. I am talking about just a reading kindle, the one that feels like reading in paper and it has no back lights , but even if!
It is all about fear, they read this kind of stuff and it seems that the fears it creates stops them from thinking. Really thinking clearly.
And people like that are using the computer, have ipads and smart phones but they think their kids brains will be stunted if they use the electronics!
This is the year 2012~! Why are people thinking they need to prepare their kids to live in the early 1900s or even earlier?
Not saying we need to prepare kids for their future life. We just live life now , in the present!
Alex Polikowsky
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
chris ester
There seems to be a good deal of what I think of as pseudo science about
the 'dangers' of 'screen time'.
I have a bit of background in research and all of the studies that I have
seen about the theoretical dangers of television never seem to take the
interaction of the parent and child into account. They keep tying video
games and television to child violence. But what about the fact that
children are under increasing amounts of stress from the institutional care
that most of them are placed in and the lack of peaceful, joyful family
interaction? There seems to be a taboo placed on talking about (or
researching) the depersonalization effect of the hours of shift work care
that many (even most) children receive from first daycare and then
schools.
As for 'will', my children displayed 'will' in utero. How can anyone
believe that children have none of their own until some parent or other
person places it in their personality?
chris
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 12:50 PM, BRIAN POLIKOWSKY <
polykowholsteins@...> wrote:
the 'dangers' of 'screen time'.
I have a bit of background in research and all of the studies that I have
seen about the theoretical dangers of television never seem to take the
interaction of the parent and child into account. They keep tying video
games and television to child violence. But what about the fact that
children are under increasing amounts of stress from the institutional care
that most of them are placed in and the lack of peaceful, joyful family
interaction? There seems to be a taboo placed on talking about (or
researching) the depersonalization effect of the hours of shift work care
that many (even most) children receive from first daycare and then
schools.
As for 'will', my children displayed 'will' in utero. How can anyone
believe that children have none of their own until some parent or other
person places it in their personality?
chris
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 12:50 PM, BRIAN POLIKOWSKY <
polykowholsteins@...> wrote:
> **[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> UGh ! Just saw the image being shared~!
>
> I have a local friend that homeschools that says that reading in a kindle
> is screen time and not the same as reading the same book in paper. I am
> talking about just a reading kindle, the one that feels like reading in
> paper and it has no back lights , but even if!
>
> It is all about fear, they read this kind of stuff and it seems that the
> fears it creates stops them from thinking. Really thinking clearly.
>
> And people like that are using the computer, have ipads and smart phones
> but they think their kids brains will be stunted if they use
> the electronics!
> This is the year 2012~! Why are people thinking they need to prepare their
> kids to live in the early 1900s or even earlier?
>
> Not saying we need to prepare kids for their future life. We just live
> life now , in the present!
>
>
> Alex Polikowsky
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
Schuyler
____________________
The other thing was on facebook, an image from a Waldorf school anti-TV demonstration. http://sandradodd.com/t/steinerScreen.jpg
One of the effects listed there is "switched off will."
I don't think one's will "switches off."
________________________________
Apparently screen time also inmovilizes your brain and body. I've never heard the word inmovilize, so I looked it up. I found this image of a pediatric inmovilization system: http://www.quirumed.com/en/Catalogo/articulo/25545/pediatric-inmovilization-system. So far not what I've seen spontaneously developing around Simon or Linnaea when they've watched television. Actually, quite the opposite. Television has produced running and talking and excitement and motion and creation and story telling and games and lego sculptures and block towers and on and on and on.... Maybe they're doing it wrong.
Schuyler
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The other thing was on facebook, an image from a Waldorf school anti-TV demonstration. http://sandradodd.com/t/steinerScreen.jpg
One of the effects listed there is "switched off will."
I don't think one's will "switches off."
________________________________
Apparently screen time also inmovilizes your brain and body. I've never heard the word inmovilize, so I looked it up. I found this image of a pediatric inmovilization system: http://www.quirumed.com/en/Catalogo/articulo/25545/pediatric-inmovilization-system. So far not what I've seen spontaneously developing around Simon or Linnaea when they've watched television. Actually, quite the opposite. Television has produced running and talking and excitement and motion and creation and story telling and games and lego sculptures and block towers and on and on and on.... Maybe they're doing it wrong.
Schuyler
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
chris ester
i
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Schuyler <s.waynforth@...>wrote:
> **
> Television has produced running and talking and excitement and motion and
> creation and story telling and games and lego sculptures and block towers
> and on and on and on.... Maybe they're doing it wrong.
>
> Schuyler
>
>
> I have often wondered about this. My children are 14 and 16 and have had
a lot of hours with tv on and have watched lots of programs of their
choice, my choice, husband's choice, other relatives' choice. If it was
something that they didn't want to see, they would either go to another
television or do something else, but this was rare because we usually
watched most television together. As my kids have gotten older, they watch
more things independently, and from more sources (dvd, streaming video, you
tube, etc) but my kids are always engaged and thoughtful about what they
watch, we have had countless interesting discussions about probably
hundreds, if not thousands of topics. I think I have learned as much from
them as they have from me in these conversations.
So, with all of this wordy background, my question is, what ARE these folks
doing wrong? Or what are we doing right? These conversations come about
because we are a talkative family and love to dissect ideas and concepts
and share what we have learned, not because my husband and I decided that
we would use television (or other media for that matter) to 'teach' our
children things.
Chris
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
On Oct 9, 2012, at 11:08 PM, chris ester wrote:
If I rolled my eyes when my husband started talking about football or training for triathlons it wouldn't make him talk more about subjects we both have in common. Because I care about him, because he finds a great deal of joy in those, I'm engaged when I listen. I learn more about him, learn more about what he loves. I can even ask intelligent questions. Being engaged with who someone is builds a stronger relationship. People who have stronger relationships want to share even more with each other.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> my question is, what ARE these folksWhat they're doing wrong is belittling what the kids like that the parents see no value in. Discussing the deep subjects begins with being engaged when kids want to share the funny things Spongebob and Patrick did and what they accomplished in a video game.
> doing wrong? Or what are we doing right?
If I rolled my eyes when my husband started talking about football or training for triathlons it wouldn't make him talk more about subjects we both have in common. Because I care about him, because he finds a great deal of joy in those, I'm engaged when I listen. I learn more about him, learn more about what he loves. I can even ask intelligent questions. Being engaged with who someone is builds a stronger relationship. People who have stronger relationships want to share even more with each other.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-I have a bit of background in research and all of the studies that I have
seen about the theoretical dangers of television never seem to take the
interaction of the parent and child into account. -=-
One that I read about wasn't even real television. I thought maybe I would just read the description of an actual study, one day, in the late 90's I think it was. They had used daycare kids, they had used some video they had brought, and they divided the group into those who were PUT in a room and told to watch a video, and others.
That's now ever how my kids have watched a video. :-)
I think the prejudice of the researchers has to play a part, too. Not many people are trying to show a benefit to kids from watching TV (though Sesame Street's parent company, the Children's Television Workshop, certainly was doing that for a while and might still be). Some of the studies come from pro-school research (people getting masters' and PhDs) or people writing books they think will sell.
There are devils in the world (not literally, in my view, but I mean the perception of evil entities) and this season, it's "screen time." So people who want to seem moral and progressive and to "save the world" will challenge those dragons, joust those black knights, vanguish those foes. I think there's a natural human instinct to identify the enemy and protect against him.
Sandra
seen about the theoretical dangers of television never seem to take the
interaction of the parent and child into account. -=-
One that I read about wasn't even real television. I thought maybe I would just read the description of an actual study, one day, in the late 90's I think it was. They had used daycare kids, they had used some video they had brought, and they divided the group into those who were PUT in a room and told to watch a video, and others.
That's now ever how my kids have watched a video. :-)
I think the prejudice of the researchers has to play a part, too. Not many people are trying to show a benefit to kids from watching TV (though Sesame Street's parent company, the Children's Television Workshop, certainly was doing that for a while and might still be). Some of the studies come from pro-school research (people getting masters' and PhDs) or people writing books they think will sell.
There are devils in the world (not literally, in my view, but I mean the perception of evil entities) and this season, it's "screen time." So people who want to seem moral and progressive and to "save the world" will challenge those dragons, joust those black knights, vanguish those foes. I think there's a natural human instinct to identify the enemy and protect against him.
Sandra
Sandra Dodd
-=-my question is, what ARE these folks
doing wrong? Or what are we doing right? These conversations come about
because we are a talkative family and love to dissect ideas and concepts
and share what we have learned,-=-
Because your family loves something, and their families prefer to hate something, maybe. :-)
Your family has chosen to share, and to learn. Many others have chosen to divide, and to fear.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
doing wrong? Or what are we doing right? These conversations come about
because we are a talkative family and love to dissect ideas and concepts
and share what we have learned,-=-
Because your family loves something, and their families prefer to hate something, maybe. :-)
Your family has chosen to share, and to learn. Many others have chosen to divide, and to fear.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
chris ester
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
intellectual/theoretical way) how people can have children and look at life
and their children in these ways.
This reminds me of something the owner of our umbrella group (which is as
pro-unschool as it can be and still meet the letter of our laws) said. We
have to have at least one 'review' of our homeschool 'program' during the
traditional school year. Our group utilizes several fun field trips to
accomplish these reviews with the idea that learning should always be fun
and joyful, but there is a small faction of parents who just want to meet
in a library or something and have an interview... The owner, in
frustration, said, "Some people just have a need to be miserable and make
things painful!"
I think she's right.... Which, to me, is sad.
Chris
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> **from Mars, because I can only just comprehend (in a strictly
> Because your family loves something, and their families prefer to hate
> something, maybe. :-)
> Your family has chosen to share, and to learn. Many others have chosen to
> divide, and to fear.
>
> Sandra
>
> You know, there are times when I think that I was dropped onto this planet
intellectual/theoretical way) how people can have children and look at life
and their children in these ways.
This reminds me of something the owner of our umbrella group (which is as
pro-unschool as it can be and still meet the letter of our laws) said. We
have to have at least one 'review' of our homeschool 'program' during the
traditional school year. Our group utilizes several fun field trips to
accomplish these reviews with the idea that learning should always be fun
and joyful, but there is a small faction of parents who just want to meet
in a library or something and have an interview... The owner, in
frustration, said, "Some people just have a need to be miserable and make
things painful!"
I think she's right.... Which, to me, is sad.
Chris
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
sheeboo2
--- chris ester <chris.homeschool@...> wrote:
There seems to be a good deal of what I think of as pseudo science about
the 'dangers' of 'screen time'.---
--- Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
One that I read about wasn't even real television. I thought maybe I would just
read the description of an actual study, one day, in the late 90's I think it
was. They had used daycare kids, they had used some video they had brought, and
they divided the group into those who were PUT in a room and told to watch a
video, and others.------
There was a major study a few years ago that showed that kids were more aggressive after watching TV. What seemed to get missed by nearly everyone who read the study and ran with it was the protocol: They'd start (I think it was a Sponge Bob) video and then turn it off after a specific amount of time, *before* the program ended! I'd be obnoxious too if someone shut off something I was engaged in before it was over! (and don't those results actually disprove the will-stealing effect of TV, anyway?)
Another control/fear-indusing joke of a study that comes to mind is the one by the fool Aric Sigman in the UK who claims that Facebook causes cancer. He seems to be the leading mouth-peice for a lot of the studies that claim electronic media rots kids brains.
Brie
There seems to be a good deal of what I think of as pseudo science about
the 'dangers' of 'screen time'.---
--- Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
One that I read about wasn't even real television. I thought maybe I would just
read the description of an actual study, one day, in the late 90's I think it
was. They had used daycare kids, they had used some video they had brought, and
they divided the group into those who were PUT in a room and told to watch a
video, and others.------
There was a major study a few years ago that showed that kids were more aggressive after watching TV. What seemed to get missed by nearly everyone who read the study and ran with it was the protocol: They'd start (I think it was a Sponge Bob) video and then turn it off after a specific amount of time, *before* the program ended! I'd be obnoxious too if someone shut off something I was engaged in before it was over! (and don't those results actually disprove the will-stealing effect of TV, anyway?)
Another control/fear-indusing joke of a study that comes to mind is the one by the fool Aric Sigman in the UK who claims that Facebook causes cancer. He seems to be the leading mouth-peice for a lot of the studies that claim electronic media rots kids brains.
Brie
Jenny Cyphers
***and this season, it's "screen time." So people who want to seem moral and progressive and to "save the world" will challenge those dragons***
I was listening to a radio show the other day, I thought it was Talk of the Nation, but I couldn't find the one I heard via that website. They were talking about gaming and violence. There were more than a few pro gaming folks weighing in. One woman was saying that even her 2 yr old can navigate ipod games and computers and she finds that to be a good thing, but she added that she follows parental advice on screen time. That comment got left hanging there and the conversation moved on to other people. I sat there and wondered what that advice was and why that comment was left untouched in a talk that was mostly pro gaming.
A couple of weeks ago a friend posted on FB that she was going to get a gaming system and wanted advice on what kind. Her kids are 6 mos, 4 and 7, or about. One of her friends posted this:
"As an educator one of the greatest obstacles to academic success is gaming. My own kids barely get any media at all. They are not allowed to watch television broadcasts, and are only allowed to choose one approvedmovie a week from the library. So, my advice is go the other way and take the video stimulation away. They will figure out what to do with themselves, and it will be better."
I don't think I've ever heard that before, that gaming is an obstacle to academic success. I asked the person what they meant by that, but they never responded.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I was listening to a radio show the other day, I thought it was Talk of the Nation, but I couldn't find the one I heard via that website. They were talking about gaming and violence. There were more than a few pro gaming folks weighing in. One woman was saying that even her 2 yr old can navigate ipod games and computers and she finds that to be a good thing, but she added that she follows parental advice on screen time. That comment got left hanging there and the conversation moved on to other people. I sat there and wondered what that advice was and why that comment was left untouched in a talk that was mostly pro gaming.
A couple of weeks ago a friend posted on FB that she was going to get a gaming system and wanted advice on what kind. Her kids are 6 mos, 4 and 7, or about. One of her friends posted this:
"As an educator one of the greatest obstacles to academic success is gaming. My own kids barely get any media at all. They are not allowed to watch television broadcasts, and are only allowed to choose one approvedmovie a week from the library. So, my advice is go the other way and take the video stimulation away. They will figure out what to do with themselves, and it will be better."
I don't think I've ever heard that before, that gaming is an obstacle to academic success. I asked the person what they meant by that, but they never responded.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-My own kids barely get any media at all.-=-
What nonsense.
Books are print media.
Radio is media.
CDs are media.
Speech is media (the medium of speech).
Art is media (the medium of art).
People who don't understand the word shouldn't be giving advice about it. He meant "electronic media," but shortened it to "devil" from "current boogeyman devil."
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
What nonsense.
Books are print media.
Radio is media.
CDs are media.
Speech is media (the medium of speech).
Art is media (the medium of art).
People who don't understand the word shouldn't be giving advice about it. He meant "electronic media," but shortened it to "devil" from "current boogeyman devil."
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Robin Bentley
>I would guess that gaming is more engaging than whatever is going on
> I don't think I've ever heard that before, that gaming is an
> obstacle to academic success. I asked the person what they meant by
> that, but they never responded.
>
in the classroom, so it's an obstacle for teachers to overcome (not
the students).
Robin B.
Sandra Dodd
-=-I would guess that gaming is more engaging than whatever is going on
in the classroom, so it's an obstacle for teachers to overcome (not
the students).-=-
Yes. Teachers like to be the most interesting thing. That's why they paper over or paint out windows, and why they don't want kids talking or writing notes or looking at interesting magazines or comic books. And video games are massively better than all of those other things, which makes teachers, and school, more boring.
If a kid isn't doing homework, they will want something to blame it on.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
in the classroom, so it's an obstacle for teachers to overcome (not
the students).-=-
Yes. Teachers like to be the most interesting thing. That's why they paper over or paint out windows, and why they don't want kids talking or writing notes or looking at interesting magazines or comic books. And video games are massively better than all of those other things, which makes teachers, and school, more boring.
If a kid isn't doing homework, they will want something to blame it on.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Laura Moyer
Just read a fantasic article on this subject:
http://jual.nipissingu.ca/Archives/Vol6No2Is12.asp
Various studies have discussed the pedagogical potential of video game play in the classroom but resistance to such texts remains high. The study presented here discusses the case study of one young boy who, having failed to learn to read in the public school system was able to learn in a private Sudbury model school wherevideo games were not only allowed but considered important learning tools. Findings suggest that the incorporation of such new texts in today’s public schools have the potential to motivate and enhance the learning of children.
http://rawdivinedish.blogspot.com/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
http://jual.nipissingu.ca/Archives/Vol6No2Is12.asp
Various studies have discussed the pedagogical potential of video game play in the classroom but resistance to such texts remains high. The study presented here discusses the case study of one young boy who, having failed to learn to read in the public school system was able to learn in a private Sudbury model school wherevideo games were not only allowed but considered important learning tools. Findings suggest that the incorporation of such new texts in today’s public schools have the potential to motivate and enhance the learning of children.
>Laura Moyer
http://rawdivinedish.blogspot.com/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Lisa Celedon
I think it's sad that many parents, teachers, and educational "experts" would consider learning from video games to be a ridiculous notion, but "educational" game systems (I'm thinking of leap frog and v-tech) for young children, even babies, are so popular. Like as long as it carries a manufacturer's reassurance that it is "educational" it's okay, but the idea that a kid could learn from any other kind of video game is laughable. Also that the educational value ends once it's covered letters, numbers, basic computation, and reading. As far as I know, those systems aren't geared toward older children (or maybe they are and I just haven't come across it).
Lisa
Sent from my iPhone
Lisa
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 14, 2012, at 7:16 AM, Laura Moyer <lmoyer67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Just read a fantasic article on this subject:
> http://jual.nipissingu.ca/Archives/Vol6No2Is12.asp
> Various studies have discussed the pedagogical potential of video game play in the classroom but resistance to such texts remains high. The study presented here discusses the case study of one young boy who, having failed to learn to read in the public school system was able to learn in a private Sudbury model school wherevideo games were not only allowed but considered important learning tools. Findings suggest that the incorporation of such new texts in today’s public schools have the potential to motivate and enhance the learning of children.
> >
> Laura Moyer
>
> http://rawdivinedish.blogspot.com/
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Robin Bentley
It's a pervasive notiion, though, that "electronics" must be in line
with (or feed into) what schools "teach". Anything else is much too
engaging and takes the focus off the teacher/parent and puts the
learning squarely in the kid's purview.
Schools don't want that, teachers don't want that. Some parents don't
want that. Gad, who knows what they might learn? :-)
We don't have to pay attention to those warnings.
Robin B.
with (or feed into) what schools "teach". Anything else is much too
engaging and takes the focus off the teacher/parent and puts the
learning squarely in the kid's purview.
Schools don't want that, teachers don't want that. Some parents don't
want that. Gad, who knows what they might learn? :-)
We don't have to pay attention to those warnings.
Robin B.
> I think it's sad that many parents, teachers, and educational
> "experts" would consider learning from video games to be a
> ridiculous notion, but "educational" game systems (I'm thinking of
> leap frog and v-tech) for young children, even babies, are so
> popular. Like as long as it carries a manufacturer's reassurance
> that it is "educational" it's okay, but the idea that a kid could
> learn from any other kind of video game is laughable. Also that the
> educational value ends once it's covered letters, numbers, basic
> computation, and reading. As far as I know, those systems aren't
> geared toward older children (or maybe they are and I just haven't
> come across it).